When did Democratic Party become anti-2A?

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rivers

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
5
We've all seen the Democrats support abortion rights (choice to the individual woman) and free speech (protecting the individual right to voice an opinion), and more. When you say ACLU, you think "liberal Democrat," right?

So when did the Democratic party start supporting the apparently contradictory position of restricting the individual's constitutional right to keep and bear arms? And is this (liberal Demo association) why the ACLU is not coming to the defense of the RKBA?

I'm hoping to not start a political debate. I'd instead like to understand why a political party that would logically appear to be a supporter is instead a major obstacle.
 
I have often pondered the same question. I am sure it has something to do with modern liberalism being more like socialism and socialism does not mix well with armed citizens. I predict this thread will be closed shortly with some reference to L&P being closed.
 
My question is not intended to be political. I'm wondering if there was a historical "moment" (or such) that started this platform position.
 
The reason that the ACLU doesn't defend the 2nd amendment is that they interpret it to be a collective right, rather than an individual right. Why this is done is unknown to me, but it really invalidates the entire organization in my personal opinion.
 
Probably had a lot to do with LBJ and the GCA of '68.

After that, and the revolt in the NRA, the NRA pretty much declared war on the LBJ and Dodd mold Democrats, forgetting that wannabe Texan east coast Rockafeller Republican socialists like George H.W. Bush voted for the GCA too.
 
At the time Gore was among other things very vocal in his support of the RKBA
Click to expand...

Many rural Democrats are pro-gun (or, at the very least, they're not anti-gun). But in the surreal world of national politics, they have to follow the party line on most issues in order to get elected and keep the party leadership happy.
 
It seems like the polarization happened in the 1960s, with anti-war activists protesting anything Vietnam, Nixon/Republican, or military. Put military and guns into the mix. Maybe that's the source.

Even though the Dems had major antiwar protesters, did the protest movement suddenly become Dem when Nixon got into office? Was the anti-gun movement simply another platform used to try to attack the Republican platform after LBJ?
 
I think the bigger question is, how come so my people still think the Republican Party is really on our side if push comes to shove?

That was a rhetorical question btw, I don't need an answer. ;)
 
I'd say it was in the 60's, right about the time the communist party took control of the liberal wing of the Democrat party.

The cold war never ended.
 
You guys don't have very long memories. LBJ was not the first. Nor was the GCA the worst. The shift came after the First World War, as part of a global movement towards socialism. The most sweeping gun control we've ever had was FDR's Gun Control Act. It alone banned whole classes of firearms that had been legal without any genuine grandfather clause. And it remains the bedrock for all federal gun control today. It's scary to see how close the Dems came to getting all handguns placed under it.

Gun control has taken on new faces over the decades, from protecting the inner cities to protecting "the children," but the underlying goal is the same. It has nothing to do with the traditional Democratic party and everything to do with wanting the US to toe the line with socialist nations.

Never forget, it was good old FDR who sold us down the river. May he burn in everlasting hellfire for it.
 
I've always been under the impression that the assassinations of JFK and MLK were 2 larger catalysts of the last few decades of popular antigun sentiment. I really don't know how much farther back it goes. I do still find it odd that the party that generally tries to promote itself as the one that will stand for more equitable treatment of people is the one that supports more of the historially racist laws.
 
The Democrat party is all about being PC and guns are not PC, just that simple. By the way, historically it was conservatives who pushed for gun control because they were concerned about armed blacks.
 
I do still find it odd that the party that generally tries to promote itself as the one that will stand for more equitable treatment of people is the one that supports more of the historially racist laws.
Click to expand...

There's nothing "equitable" about stealing money from those who work, keeping most of it for government, and handing a small portion of it to those who don't work.

There's nothing "equitable" about deliberately dumbing down education.

There's nothing "equitable" about political correctness.

There's nothing "equitable" about infringing the right of ordinary people to keep and bear arms.

Goebbels would be proud.
 
The Democratic party started going anti-second amendment pretty much immediately after ratification. For instance, Nat Turners rebellion in 1831 prompted a national change of laws.

The seminal change though was in 1865. In the aftermath of the civil war, the Democrats (who ran the Confederacy and would continue to run the south until the mid 20th century) started passing gun control laws to disarm the recently freed slaves. These openly racist ideas fell on fertile soil in the northern big cities which were enduring an influx of immigrants from Europe.

For more on the historical issue:
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

The modern American Democratic party is dominated by authoritarian socialists who agree with Mao that "Political power grows from the barrel of a gun."
 
woof, I fixed your sentence for you

By the way, historically it was Democrats who pushed for gun control because they were concerned about armed blacks.

Dem's founded the KKK , one of their missions was disarming blacks, Dem's pushed most gun control.
 
Somewhere in time the Democrats became the party of urban bohemians when it was previously the party of "rum, Romanism and rebellion" (in other words Southerners, Northern Roman Catholics and opponents of the prohibition of alcohol.) Urban sophisticates see urban minorities killing both them and each other with guns and want it stopped. In the northern cities there is no hunting or target shooting sub-culture. Guns are percieved as for the criminal killing of people, period.
 
I agree with CornCod. In fact in Europe which is on average more urbanized, gun control is more advanced and the liberal leaning parties support it and the conservative leaning parties generally oppose it (with some variation).

Most of my liberal colleagues have never shot a firearms (some have never seen one) and have never gone hunting. They are afraid of something they don't know. I have tried to convert some of them or at least to show them that there isn't anything intrinsically evil about guns but I have had mixed success.
 
The Democratic Party has always been anti-2nd Amendment for Black people.

Remember, it was the party of slavery and Jim Crow. Then when the party lurched hard left, it became anti-2nd Amendment for Black people for different [stated] reasons.
 
It's worth remembering that Eleanor Roosevelt (President Franklin D. Roosevelt's wife) was a handgun shooter and was known to carry a revolver for her personal protection. President Harry S. Truman was a shotgun shooter. President John F. Kennedy became a Life Member of the NRA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
  • Locked
Democratic control of House and impending anti 2A legislation
Replies
1
Views
351
Robert
Robert
O
  • Locked
HISTORICAL evolution of politicization of pro- or anti- 2A
Replies
21
Views
1K
JSH1
J
B
  • Locked
Nevada ACLU Supports Heller and 2nd Amendment!
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
Rachen
R
K
  • Locked
A magnificent example of why not to use "liberal" as an attack/insult
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Replies
249
Views
12K
Robert
Robert
M
  • Locked
NYT Article:
Replies
16
Views
896
rojocorsa
R
Back
Top